Tuesday, July 29, 2014

In a thread at Original D&D Discussion about running Tegel
Manor Geoffrey McKinney made some comments on how good the map for thatadventure is. I recall liking the map but had forgotten why some folks think it’s special. I
realized something I do myself and an awful lot of other folks likely do: we
produce sterile dungeon maps. Big empty maps full of walls and door locations
and numbers but mostly empty space.

I myself post a number of maps and map sections on this blog
but I do them with an eye to other people making use of them for themselves so I
don’t clutter the maps with a bunch of stuff I use when making maps as I use
them in play. I leave a lot of empty
space for other DMs to fill in their own stuff, I even leave out the doors some
of the time when posting maps here because those pesky doors are an adventure specific
feature of many a dungeon adventure. I
think I and many other dungeon builders are shorting each other and everyone
else. What I put on my maps for my own use but don’t usually put on maps I post
here: traps and trap trigger areas, dungeon vegetation, floor properties, ceiling
heights, treasure locations, grumpy smiley faces (meaning monster in this
room), air quality, and clutter. When I was a kid I often used big 22”x17”
sheets to map out my dungeons at 1” to 10’, an entire dungeon might have ended
up all on the maps but as I became more sophisticated and wanted bigger dungeons I
drifted towards the more conventional and sterile style of map and notes even
if I tend to go beyond empty walls and number for my own use.

My dungeon maps get really cluttered and full as the dungeon
is used in play. Footprints get put on the map, dead bodies and broken doors
get noted, player navigation marks are noted. A lot of little things end up down
on the map that become notable and even important with repeated play in the
same dungeon, I end up noting circles of illumination sometimes that really
help when describing things (why I don’t do that a heck of a lot more often beforehand
I do not know).

I think I’m tired of sterile dungeon maps, we all should be.
I’m going to have to put more on the maps I post here and I hope other folks do
as well.

Monday, July 28, 2014

The same standard 6 ability scores have been with D&D since it's inception and they have gone on to impact the entire RPG hobby, but why not change up ability scores and what they mean in a campaign? If a DM pays attention to how ability scores work within the rules of the game they are using those ability score themselves can be changed to provide a different game experience.

No ability scores at all. The most drastic means of addressing
the situation is to simply not have any ability scores. In the original D&D
rules ability score had little direct impact on most immediate actions so
little actually some have wondered why they were bothered with at all. By ditching
abilitry score entierly all adventurers
are equally capable at common adventuring tasks and no player is slave to bad
luck and no one ends up subordinate to the early lucky rolls of another player.
This method is used by some minimalist D&D variants out there “Searchers of
the Unkown” being the one that come to mind first.Characters abilities are tied to class,
level, and player choice a character will emerge from play instead of being
rigidly defined in a few small areas. There
is room for this method to be exploited by pushy and intelligent players that
may cause it to break down for a wide open and extended campaign but in more
tightly focused campaigns or limited duration ones the ability scores can be an
unneeded layer of complexity.

Ability score as modifier has two particular advantages over
the standard score and modifier model in that they are unbound, and concise.
Both advantages can also be a deterrent in their use however. Ability score as
modifier is concise as there is no look up required to determine the effect of
an ability on a relevant action if you have a +3 in Might you have a +3 bonus
to all things might related.An ability
score as modifier is unbound you can technically go to infinity in either direction
as there is no score floor or ceiling implied by this method; you don’t’ have
to have a housecat with a strength of 3(or 1). There is a problem in the ability score as modifier as it isn’t
clear how relatively effective or weak any two characters really are in a game without
really looking into the numbers (a +4 is cool if you are roll 1d20 and adding 4
but it’s even better if you are rolling 3d6 and adding) and some baselines have
to still be established which can look odd compared to a ability score as
modifier mechanic.

Changing the Names of ability Scores. Using the same core set of modifiers by changing the definitions
of the ability scores.Why Strength,
Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma? I explored this
option in a post a couple years ago in this post: http://aeonsnaugauries.blogspot.com/2009/10/whats-in-name-or-ability-scores-and.html
. In brief the game may feel different by simply changing a few names and the
expectations that go with them as a result while otherwise retaining existing
modifiers. By example: if Strength is instead Size some the descriptions of
things certainly shift while still playing out effectively the same numerically
in uch of play but there will be occasional telling differences; big folk can
use big weapons better, they can surely bash open door easier but what happens
when high Size characters have to squeeze through a small hole?

Additional ability scores. Why stick with just the ones your
game came with? Even AD&D added Comeliness to the standard roster of ability
scores for a time why not consider doing the same in your campaign?Core tasks repeated again and again in the
game might work better if tied to a new ability score; Perception as an ability
score is a popular one that came up in Dragon magazine ages ago and is a
popular candidate. Luck is a popular ability scores used by some
D&D-a-likes that would fit in well as a modifier to the saving throw system
or perhaps a complete alternative. If characters are going to spend a lot of
time on horseback in a campaign and the DM feels there should be some
difference between how well characters ride it might be worth adding Horsemanship
as an ability score as opposed to adding on a skill system.One could even delve deeper into some of the functionality
of ability scores now and break them down further sure a high intelligence makes
one a better magi-user but what if magic was tied to something else maybe Magical
Affinity with minimum scores establishing spell access and/or magic item use
instead of the intellect alone? How about breaking up that Charisma score into
Looks, Leadership, and Bargaining surely that’s going to lead to a wider range
of play and more varied characters.

Fewer ability scores is an option as well one could reign in
the number of ability scores to more generalize them to have more evocative
relationships t common areas in a campaign. For example: Strength and Constitution
get rolled up together in Vigor, Dexterity and Intelligence get wound up into
Craft and Wisdom and Charisma are wound up into Spirit; maybe some of the
modifiers are dropped, maybe they are just carried along, it’s up to the campaign
of course. With such a scheme the strong (unless diseased or injured) are usually
also healthy, the wise know the right thing to say and more readily influence others
than could a rude oaf with a charming smile.

There is no need to leave ourselves tethered to the same standard
six ability scores in our own campaigns, the rules as written are a starting
point not the be all and end all of the possibilities in a campaign.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

The critical hit is an old time house rule and favorite of many a fantasy RPG player but just what is the actual impact on combat over the course of the game and as such thousands of rounds? The following charts explore the impact of critical applied as simple multipliers to damage inflicted.

Chart 10b: comparing likely damage in consideration of crits
for x2 on a 20.

Damage

Die

Average Likely Damage without Critical Hit

Average Likely Damage with

Critical Hit

Damage as % of

Standard
Die Type

Compared to same

With Critical

Damage as % of

1d6 compared to

Die Type

With Critical Critical

d4

0.9375

1.0625

113%

81%

d6

1.3125

1.4875

113%

113%

d8

1.6875

1.9125

113%

146%

d10

2.0625

2.3375

113%

178%

The charts above show a d4 or 1d6 weapon scoring a critical
hit that doubles the damage on a hit roll of 20 isn’t a very substantial gain in
likely damage as both are likely to inflict less damage than a straight +1
damage bonus would (see chart 7b).

D8 and D10 weapons do a bit better with this situation
coming close to but not beating a flat bonus of +1 to damage (as per chart 7b).

Over the course of thousands of rounds of combat the
critical hit has fairly minimal impact on combat compared to a flat damage
bonus. In any given round using a x2 critical does create a bit of excitement
as there is a 5% chance of inflicting above average damage on every hit but
over the long run it just doesn’t do much at all.

Introducing a confirmation roll as 3.x D&D would have
the result of reducing the average likely damage from that shown in chart 10a resulting
in critical hits being even of less significance and a much lesser improvement
in damage with more time spent in game to calculate the damage (a time drag for
no significant overall gain).

Next let's check the results of doubling the dice roll while doubling a damage bonus

Chart 11a: likely damage by doubling of damage die + damage
bonus

Damage

roll

Armor Class

9[10]

8[11]

7[12]

6[13]

5[14]

4[15]

3[16]

2[17]

d4

1.5

1.375

1.25

1.125

1.0

0.875

0.75

0.625

d4 +1

2.1

1.925

1.75

1.575

1.4

1.225

1.05

0.875

d4 +2

2.7

2.475

2.25

2.025

1.8

1.575

1.35

1.125

d4 +3

3.3

3.025

2.75

2.475

2.2

1.925

1.65

1.375

d4 +4

3.9

3.575

3.25

2.925

2.6

2.275

1.95

1.625

d6

2.1

1.925

1.75

1.575

1.4

1.225

1.05

0.875

d6 +1

2.7

2.475

2.25

2.025

1.8

1.575

1.35

1.125

d6 +2

3.3

3.025

2.75

2.475

2.2

1.925

1.65

1.375

d6 +3

3.9

3.575

3.25

2.925

2.6

2.275

1.95

1.625

d6 +4

4.5

4.125

3.75

3.375

3

2.625

2.25

1.875

d8

2.7

2.475

2.25

2.025

1.8

1.575

1.35

1.125

d8 +1

3.3

3.025

2.75

2.475

2.2

1.925

1.65

1.375

d8 +2

3.9

3.575

3.25

2.925

2.6

2.275

1.95

1.625

d8 +3

4.5

4.125

3.75

3.375

3

2.625

2.25

1.875

d8 +4

5.1

4.675

4.25

3.825

3.4

2.975

2.55

2.125

d10

3.3

3.025

2.75

2.475

2.2

1.925

1.65

1.375

d10 +1

3.9

3.575

3.25

2.925

2.6

2.275

1.95

1.625

d10 +2

4.5

4.125

3.75

3.375

3

2.625

2.25

1.875

d10 +3

5.1

4.675

4.25

3.825

3.4

2.975

2.55

2.125

d10 +4

5.7

5.225

4.75

4.275

3.8

3.325

2.85

2.375

Chart 11b: comparing average damage of doubling dice and
damage bonus

Base

Damage

Average

Likely

Damage

Inflicted

AC 9 to 2

Critical Damage

As %

Of standard

1d6

d4

1.0625

81%

d4 +1

1d6

1.4875

113%

d4+2

1d6+1

1d8

1.9125

146%

d4 +3

1d6+2

1d8+1

1d10

2.3375

178%

d4 +4

1d6+3

1d8+2

1d10+1

2.7625

210%

d6 +4

1d8+3

1d10+2

3.1875

243%

d8 +4

1d10+3

3.6125

275%

d10 +4

4.0375

308%

Chart 11a and chart 11b show multiplying the base die and
the damage bonus provides a significant boost to damage inflicted. The weight
given to bonuses when they are also multiplied is telling.

Note the same results as those shown on table 11a and 11b
would be achieved by doubling the dice rolled or by doubling the score of rolling
one die.

About Me

A RPG player who thinks he has something to share. Discovered wargaming at the age of 9 or so thanks to Avalon Hill. Started playing D&D in the later days of the 70's as one of those annoying kids and currently games with spouse, family and friends.